Scott Wheeler, besides looking like a penis with ears, is the executive director of The National Republican Trust Political Action Committee. According to Mr. Wheeler, he speaks for Americans and not for just Republicans. Just for the record, he doesn’t speak for me.

What was he trying to speak about? As a guest of Lawrence O’Donald, a cookyeyed liberal, on The Ed Show he was asked why he was so scared of a potential appointment of Sonia Sotomayor, a judge appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991. His answer was that he spoke for all Americans when he said that he couldn’t support her due to her judicial activism.

So he is opposed to her being active as a judge. He went on to say, when asked if there were any Democrats that he would support, that republicans would support Mario Cuomo (Not to be confused with Perry Cuomo). Are you kidding me? (Sorry, promised Gray wouldn’t use horseshit anymore) The GOParanoid will not support a nominee who is considered by most to be the most liberal Governor New York has ever had, who is pro-choice, and against the death penalty. Let’s face it, anyone that Barack Hussein Obama nominates they are going to oppose.

The answer to your question is it doesn’t matter. Judicial decision should simply be an interpretation of law. This may be done by precedent, reasonability, or legislative intent.

If you can show me in our Constitution,in case law, or by legislative intent that denying a person the ability to deal with a medical condition in the way they see fit does not violate the due process clause of the constitution then overturn Roe v. Wade.

The court ruled that decison should be left up to a qualified medical provider. Though I disagree with abortion. I do beleive that the best person to decide what is right in these cases are the woman and her doctor.

If you would like to read the decision for yourself click the link below.

If it is “after-birth”, how can it be considered an abortion? I beleive if you read the decision, they did address late-term abortions, but still if the health (or life — not sure how you distinguish the two) of the mother is in jeopardy, the best person to make that decision is the mother and her doctor.

Like I said before, I disagree with abortion. Though I am sure members of the GOParanoid would argue with me, I doubt you can find me anyone who is advocating abortion on demand, nor do any conservatives really want to make abortion de facto illegal. Abortion is simply another wedge issue, because no one can explain their position in black or white without alienating a certain group of people.

Even James Mills,the most conservative legislator in Georgia (IMO), had trouble with this during his last campaign. Even he said that allowances should be made for the health of the mother. He later changed his statement to life of the mother, but that is still an exception, and I imagine he would say that a doctor is best to decide the life of the mother. Does that mean he is pro-choice and not pro-life? You can’t paint people with that kind of brush.

Laws should not be based on what is right or what is wrong, but the consent of the govern. If that sounds like a politician should promise to do what he thinks his constituents would vote for then you are correct. This post which you and Chris have turned into a diatribe on James Mills was actually about the judicial branch and the role they should play in interpreting legislative intent and constitutional rights.

The judiciary should based their decision solely on precedent, constitutional law, and legislative intent. So if the legislature passes a bill just to get elected, it is the role of our justices to make sure that law is constitutional.

Whether biological facts, philosophical facts, or theological facts are used in a decision it should be to the extent of whether these are constitutional.

In Roe V. Wade, the court did focus on theological thinking.

Justice Blackmon wrote…

“3. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before “quickening” – the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 – was not an indictable offense… a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became “formed” or recognizably human, or in terms of when a “person” came into being, that is, infused with a “soul” or “animated.”…Although [410 U.S. 113, 134] Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide.”